I'm curious to know what you obama lovers and obama haters think about the flap with Bob Woodward?

Sal wrote:

He's been coasting on Bernstein's scoop his entire career.

Bob wrote:Any of you wanna weigh in on it?

Also, do any of you know where I can get some Clearasil on sale?

Sal wrote:The problem with Bob Woodward is not the egregious power-slurping, nor the thousand-page doorstops that power-slurping produces with the monotonous regularity of cows walking up through the slaughter-pens. The problem with Bob Woodward is that, for all his formidable reputation, he's something of a meathead. He can't write his name. His analysis is inevitably the most lugubrious recitation of the latest right-leaning Beltway conventional wisdom. If he's ever had an original or interesting thought, it died of loneliness. And now, it appears, he's become a paranoid meathead.

Moreover, Woodward, whose facility with English rivals a manatee's gifts with power tools, argued that, because he never specifically used the word "threat" to describe Sterling's caution that Woodward would "regret" saying that the Sequestration was the president's idea, that he hasn't been all over the public prints and the public airwaves saying he'd been threatened with retaliation by the White House. (Which brings up the obvious question — what can they possibly do to Bob Fking Woodward?) OK, now even I'm starting to think Nixon was framed.

His whole problem is that the e-mails do speak for themselves, and they disagree with the interpretation that Woodward has placed on them, and, because he's a meathead, and because he's not a deft enough thinker to extricate himself from this wholly unnecessary comedy, he keeps explaining how Sperling threatened him in a way that was not a threat. An intervention is sorely needed here, or a stun gun.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Bob_Woodward_Keeps_Digging#sthash.b5hMP1V7.dpuf

Bob wrote:You two have not disappointed me. lol

Bob wrote:I was listening to Mark Levin's radio show in the car yesterday. And he was cautioning his audience "don't be mislead with this current thing to be believe Woodward as a reporter is one of us".

I wish I could have gotten a line into the radio show. I wanted to ask him "since when are journalists supposed to belong to either side of this wrastlin match? Haven't you and your kind always preached that the problem IS journalists being biased?"
What a goddamned hypocrite. lol

VectorMan wrote:

I think Levin (who I like) meant Woodward isn't a conservative. Or, did I miss something?[/b]

Floridatexan wrote:
And what I'm trying to say is that Woodward is on WOODWARD'S side.

Bob wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
And what I'm trying to say is that Woodward is on WOODWARD'S side.

I'm so glad you brought that up. Because that fact is what explodes a widely held myth. The myth being that journalists more than anything want to promote whichever political partisanship they cotton to.
Journalists are absolutely no different than any other professionals. Exactly as you say, they are promoting themselves. It just kills me how most people are so naive that they believe a journalist will not want to break a story if that story makes his own politics look bad. That journalist is primarily interested in himself, not a politician or a political position. If it promotes a Woodward's career, a Woodward will blow the whistle on Bush, on Obama or on anybody else. And it's so naive to believe he won't.

VectorMan wrote:
I don't consider Levin to be a "journalist" , per se. He's a commentator with an opinion. Not necessarily a story or report. Where does the line blur? Hell if I know. But, I'll take almost all the conservative "commentators" over all the liberal reporters/repeaters.[/b]